(First published 6/27/2012) The nine years from 1970 to 1978 may have been the golden age of the “mid sized” sedan in America. In those days, “mid sized” was a mite bigger than it is now. Back then, it meant a wheelbase of roughly 114 to 118 inches, a curb weight of around 35-3,700 pounds and V8 engines in the 300 to 360 cubic inch displacement range. There were many other choices in those years, but the mid-size sedan became what the “standard sized” sedan had been a decade earlier. This was where practical middle America put its automotive dollars in the 1970s. So how, then, did the poor AMC Matador, which fit squarely into every one of these criteria, fail so miserably to become a significant contender in this market? That is the question of the day.

In its day, the Matador fought them all. Torino, Malibu, LeMans, Coronet, and even the hallowed Cutlass. The Matador fought them and lost. Badly. The Matador should have been called Mat for short, because it was the automotive equivalent of a doormat – it got no respect and was constantly walked on. Why do some cars become loved classics, while others are just tolerated (or forgotten altogether) during their long model runs? Is it just coincidence that its most famous ad slogan (“What’s a Matador?”) was almost identical to the title of a Three Stooges movie?

The Matador started with such high hopes. A fairly through refresh of the attractive 1967 Rebel, the car started the 1970s with a new look and followed it almost immediately with a new name. The name was fine – Matador. Who could argue with a car that brought to mind the image of the brave and manly Spanish bullfighter? Was there a better image for a mid sized American sedan at the dawn of the 1970s? “Satellite” and “Skylark” were so last decade (or two). AMC had the name nailed down. But the look? Uhhhhhh – no.

The 1967 Rebel had been an attractive car with a not-so-attractive name. Look at that Rebel sedan. Is there a bad line on it anywhere? To me, it is one of the most attractive midsize sedans of the late 1960s. Unfortunately, poor snake-bitten AMC would do the reverse after 1970. This attractive new name would be affixed to a car with styling that can only be called unfortunate. And why they would have still called the new 1970 design a Rebel, waiting a full year to change the car’s name to Matador is vintage AMC – a mystery.

I have never understood the look of this car. In the mid 1960s, every U. S. car company that did not employ Bill Mitchell as its lead stylist produced cars whose lines were sharp and angular. But at that time, the entire industry marched to the drumbeat of General Motors, and the styling leadership coming from GM decreed that it was time to go with the flow. The soft, fluid shapes that started at GM in 1965 took over in the rest of the industry by 1970, when virtually all of motordom was curvy and proud of it. So, what happened with the Rebel/Matador?

It has been said that nothing succeeds by half measures, and the 1970 model is a particularly good example. Somehow, the car manages to lack both angularity and flow, all at the same time. Is there a more awkward design of the 1970-72 period? It is not as though AMC lacked talented stylists. The 1970 Hornet and the upcoming 1971 Javelin were, if not beautiful, certainly very nice designs in tune with the age. Even the Gremlin was a nicely done job, given the constraints of the assignment. Perhaps the stylists exhausted themselves with all of the other cars they were doing and were just out of energy and ideas by the time they finally got to the big M.

In particular, the entire rear half of the car was just wrong, and not really unified with the front. It is as though the stylists wanted to emulate the Chrysler fuselage or the 1968 GM A body sedan, but were only allowed to re-do the rear of the car. Sorry, but it is just not possible to mate a hippy, coke-bottle rear onto a car that is basically rectangular from the B pillar forward. It just can’t be done. Well, it can – but it looks like this.

I have never understood the relationship between the rear door, the C pillar, and the rear quarter panel. It is as though the stylists decided on a point where each of those lines would meet, then made each a straight line to that point and called it a job. The 1970 Torino and even AMC’s own 1970 Hornet were beautifully proportioned cars with a graceful fluidity to their lines. On the other hand, Chrysler’s Valiant/Dart sedans proudly wore their 1967 angularity long after it was out of style, yet still sold a lot of cars to those who did not need style with their practicality. Poor AMC tried to chart a course halfway between those opposing looks, but found that when the river forks, staying in the middle is a good way to run aground.

In 1974, it was time to freshen up the old girl, and this is where things started to get really weird. There were a lot of 1974 cars that wore their government-mandated 5 mph bumpers with some awkwardness. However, was there a worse front end in all of the 1970s than this Matador? This car makes the fish-mouthed 1955 Studebaker look positively elegant. This is a look that could only have come from a mixture of alcohol and a deadline. Should I ever succeed in creating a time machine, one of the first places I plan to go is the meetings where this design was approved. Seriously. Who was the guy who said “let’s push the front out just a bit farther – I don’t think that this one is pronounced enough.” Was everyone in Kenosha hung over from a weekend of brats and Blatz? This thing would scare some of the more sensitive children. Yet there it was, prominently displayed in AMC showrooms everywhere. Somehow, Dick Teague’s design crew managed to do the impossible: They somehow botched the only decent looking parts of the car. Oh well, I guess there is something to be said for consistency.

The last four years of its run, the Matador, which had never been a big seller to begin with, went into the tank. It is as though the poor, hapless bullfighter finally realized that his public was laughing at him, and he retreated to his room to smoke, drink and brood. And hire himself out for some government jobs. But somehow, when he knew that the end was at hand, he managed to pull his very best and most festive garments from the closet to make his final, ill-fated appearance. Sort of like Elvis. For the final Matador sedan, this was the Barcelona package.

The Matador coupe (another story for another time) had featured a Barcelona trim package a couple of years earlier, that tried to Broughamify the oddly out-of-style car. “Maybe”, thought the designers, “the sedan just needs some more Brougham.”

Perhaps this was not a bad instinct in the second half of the 1970s, but no amount of Broughamification was going to save the Matador at this late date. The Barcelona package would take a standard Matador and add the two-tone paint scheme in either these colors or in a red/maroon combination, with some color-keyed “slot-styled” wheels. On the sedans, the two-tone treatment was a nearly perfect rectangle that worked against rather than with the basic shape of the car. Then, the package included in interior with every 1970s Brougham cliche then in use, with the little woven insert stripes for good measure. Otherwise, the car was a garden variety Matador, with either the old 258 inline 6 or the 360 V8 and some luxury options.

Every Father’s Day, there is a nice old car show held in a park in a nearby small town. For several years, my sons and I have ambled around this show, enjoying a wide variety of old cars being displayed by their justifiably proud owners. As a rule, Curbside Classic brings you the cars that we find out on the street, still earning their keep, if only occasionally. Conversely, we generally avoid bringing you vehicles found at car shows. But every once in awhile, we stumble across something at a car show that just screams to have its story told on CC.

This year, we were stopped in our tracks by this most unique face. Then we looked inside, and we were mesmerized. Not just a Matador, mind you, but the Barcelona version. Looking at this car is sort of like looking at the aftermath of a terrible traffic accident. You know that you shouldn’t stare, but you just can’t help it. This car reminds me of some scenes from the movie My Cousin Vinnie. Vinnie is a dull and loutish fellow who has just passed the bar exam, and finds himself in court in another state defending his cousin who has been charged with murder. During the trial, Vinnie’s only suit is ruined, and he has to come to court wearing a red velvety tuxedo. Not only is he completely outmatched by the experienced prosecutor and the crusty old judge (“Mr. Gambini, are you mocking me with that outfit?”), but he looks like a fool as well. What do you say? Is the proper response pity or laughter? I have the same reaction to this car. How do you appropriately respond to “velveteen crush fabric with woven accent stripes”. I have no idea. In 1978, people responded by buying Cutlasses.

Some time back, Paul Niedermeyer wrote about a ’73 Matador (CC Here). In the piece, Paul made the apt comparison of AMC in the 1970s with Studebaker in the 1960s. During Studebaker’s final years, Brooks Stevens made a lot of changes to the basic sedan structure and managed to take an unattractive basic shape and at least modernize it, changing almost every piece of sheetmetal in the process. The result was that a 1964 Stude looked very, very different from the 1956 or even the 1960 version of what was actually the same basic car. Even though Studebaker eventually failed, the cars told us that the people making them were at least trying. But AMC’s designers did the opposite with the Matador. Once the basic unattractive shape of the sedan was set in the 1970 refresh, it would remain unaltered for the next 8 years. This is the most maddening thing about the Matador – AMC didn’t even seem to be making a serious effort.

During the 1970s, most breakout successes were in the Matador’s size class. The Olds Cutlass was America’s best selling car. This makes the Matador’s failure all the more damning. With a car like the oddball Pacer, its lack of success could be interpreted as the consumer saying “it’s not you, it’s me.” But the poor showing of a midsized sedan in the 70s was undeniably the consumer saying “sorry, it’s you.” So the poor Matador closed out its final model year by donning its most flamboyant suit and meeting its maker. They don’t get any better looking than this one, folks. This is the version they used in the brochure. And they couldn’t even make it look good in the brochure shot. If cars had tombstones, the one for this car could read something like this: Matador. 1971-1978. The Rebel son of the Ambassador. Died from wounds inflicted by a Cutlass in the vicinity of Cordoba. There was no funeral.

Do I seem to be piling onto this poor car? Perhaps I am, but it is only because this one disappoints me so. If there was ever an AMC car that should have appealed to me, it should have been this one. Large-ish V8 powered cars that were born in the mid 1960s have no better friend than me. But AMC’s dominant DNA was from Nash, and was there ever a company that built so many undistinguished cars? Twenty years earlier, the big Nash sedan went away and nobody seemed to notice or care. The Matador would do the same. But at least it went out in its best suit.

124 Comments

In Australia, these cars were sold as Rambler Matadors. They were extremely unsuccessful. They were the very last of the line for AMC in Australia and it’s easy to see why. Even Hornets sold maybe 500 a year by 1975. I don’t know the figures.
We never had Gremlins, Pacers or Marlins but we did get the mighty Hornet, Javelin, Rebel and Classic, which were fine cars, if a bit more expensive than a Ford Falcon or Chrysler Valiant. I even remember seeing one (yes, one) of those hideously offensive-looking Matador X Coupe’s.

Marching to the beat of my different drum (again!), I’ve really liked the 1970s Matador (and Rebel/Ambassador) styling since my 1980s childhood. The rear side of the Matador always reminds me of the Australian P5 Ford LTD sedan, which I also like. I don’t think the factory RHD Matadors we got had that protruding grille though, and even though I like the rest of the design, that ’74 nose is unexpectedly large. It begs some sort of Dolly Parton comparison really! (no disrespect intended towards Dolly!)

My younger brother, who runs a small used car operation, at some point ended up with a ’78 Matador wagon that he eventually decided to hang on to, kind of like a stray mutt that ends up being so endearing you can’t bring yourself to take it to the pound. If I can pry some photos out of him I’ll post it to the Cohort.

I would actually probably maybe take a wagon. But then I would take a wagon version of about anything. The wagon was the one body that wasn’t fouled up with the 1970 restyle that turned the Rebel into the Matador. I don’t think that the ’74 front end did it any favors, but it was a nice looking cars, and maybe my favorite AMC car of the 70s.

Every now and then a mint Barcelona coupe shows up at the Carlisle car shows…and I must say, I’m tempted. These Matadors are inexpensive compared to the GM Colonnade A-body coupes of these years, and certainly don’t lack “character.”

@Jordan, I like it too. I don’t find the lines that awkward what I see is a “baby” 1960s Ambassador wit a few tweaks. And I actually find the brougham-ing of this model to be fairly constrained compared to what many of the Detroit makers were pumping out at this time.

But then what do I know? I really liked the Amabassador DPL featured a few weeks ago. Perhaps what AMC needed to promote the Matador was an actor with a Spanish accent – to bad Ricardo was going to Chrysler. 😛

The Matador coupe was really an attractive car, but the four door sedan was a totally frumpy looking vehicle-especially the front end which I always felt was one of most
unattractive I had ever seen. I never could figure out why AMC didn’t use the coupe’s
styling elements on the sedan-it would have resulted in a much more attractive vehicle.

Those four-door renderings based on the coupe look better than the Matador sedans that AMC did offer the public. Granted, that isn’t saying much.

In the long run, I doubt that a restyled sedan would have generated enough sales to pay for the tooling – which is what happened with the Matador coupe. Dick Teague’s design was simply too far outside the styling mainstream for both personal luxury coupes and intermediate sedans of that time to sell in the quantities AMC needed.

Ok, at risk of repeating myself I must spring to the defense of the 71-73 Matadors. The coke bottle look was much more successful on the 2-door hardtop. Sure it was a mashup of ’60’s Dodge styling cues with vestigial fins as a ’50’s leftover but compared to what came after….

Doug, you raise a great point. The 70-73 2 door is the AMC I may like even better than the wagon. Your point made me look something up, and I realized that the newly restyled 1970 cars were still called Rebels, a point that I have clarified in the post. The fact that nobody caught this shows how under the radar these cars were. I had always assumed that the 1970 restyle and the new Matador name went together.

I think that the 2 door works precisely because it is NOT a coke-bottle shape at the rear. It still carries that Mopar-style angularity all through the car, and I have always found it to be a very attractive car. Actually, with the possible exception of the wagon, it may be the most perfect version of the entire 1967-78 run of this car. There was also an Ambassador version, IIRC.

I call that an attractive profile for a mid-sized American car of the time. Not a classic, not particularly innovative (as previously noted, quite Mopar-derivative), but an overall decent shape that wouldn’t embarrass you to be seen getting in and out of. But then, I always liked the Rebel that preceded this, too.

Anyone out there have the skills and the time to Photoshop this coupe into a Marlin fastback/humpback version? Now that I would like to see.

I agree with MJ, that would have been better looking at the time, when single headlights still said economy car. Unless they were really emphasized like the Malibu did off and on. This car has a much stronger face with duals.

Yes, and the Ambassador looked better, but it had a flatter front end, not a protruding center section. Which leads me to questions I’ve always had:
1) Did Ambassador & Matador share wheelbase and front fenders in 1974? (I don’t know, but didnt Mat have 118 & Amb 122?)
2) Why did the matador have such a protruding nose? vs. Ambassadors better looking face.?
3) Front bumpers shared between the two? Again, if so, why make one with the longer nose then? If NOT shared bumpers– WHY? from a cost standpoint?

Vent windows! In 1978?! A car that was still hanging onto vent windows in the late 1970s should get a little nod of respect. Granted, AMC’s reason for continuing to use them was the same as a whole generation of dads wearing their 1960s skinny neckties well into the 1970s: Because they are oblivious to fashion trends. But I really miss vent windows; sometimes it’s nice to let a little air inside without messing up your hair. I hope they come back.

But the selling feature became “high level” vents mounted in the dash so you could point the air at your face rather than your feet. My IHs have the old fashioned vents and they just aren’t that effective. Plus the stir up the dirt and debris on the floor.

Ford hung on to vent windows until 1989 for the Ford LTD Crown Victoria (on which they were an option). Wikipedia and other sources suggest this was the last passenger car to feature them, in the U.S. at least. (I’m glad mine has them, since the A/C compressor is defunct.)

I would suspect that the vent windows stayed because the company was unwilling to engineer and build a replacement – it was probably viewed as cheaper and easier to just keep building and selling the existing design.

Count me as a fan of both vent windows and of floor/cowl vents that supplied fresh, unheated air. These are what made cars livable before air conditioning became commonplace.

Back in grade school the a friend of mine’s mom had a Matador wagon-’74 I think. Two things about that car still stick in my mind. It was this bizarre reddish shade that I have never seen on any other car. Kind of a mixture of Thousand Island and French salad dressings. Not quite red, nor coral, nor rust, nor maroon, nor pink. Weird. The best part was the “mileage meter” on the dash. Fuel economy was rated excellent, good, or poor. If memory serves just bringing your foot anywhere near the accelerator dropped the gauge into “poor”. We use to joke that maybe coasting downhill with the engine off while being refilled by a tanker truck would kick the gauge reading to “excellent”? We’ll never know.

Loved AMC from the first but don’t much care for the Marlin and was picky about them in the last era. I would own just about any earlier car but my favorite has to be any year American. I expecially would like to have one with a 258. I had one in a 78 Concorde and have nothing but praise for it. The American was direct competition with the Nova/Falcon etc. A pocket rocket with just a little urging.

I think AMC could have lasted longer by keeping small. I think their small cars were better than the competition and their large cars had nothing going for them that chev/ford/mopar didn’t have as well. They were trying to go head to head with the big three and it didn’t work well. Not enough cash one supposes. BTW, I drove several Nashes (did not own them) and I noticed when they left. They were a solid car that would last for quite a spell.

Sorry to sound so “old mannish” but that’s an appropriate sound for me.

I saw a 1972 sedan a few months ago in a Walmart parking lot from a distance. What struck me was how narrow the track was…the wheels looked as though they were hidden under the body. Apparently, when AMC facelifted the Rebel in 1970, it made the body sides more bloated, but didn’t have the money to widen the track. The car looked very awkward.

When I was a kid, these cars were almost invisible. I can’t remember anyone who owned a Matador. Most of them I remember were government fleet cars for the local army depot.

Even AMC put all of its advertising dollars behind the Gremlin and Hornet.

The odd nose for 1974 killed the sedans and wagons. Plenty of people called it the “Jimmy Durante” nose.

By that point, I believe that only diehard AMC fans or senior citizens (plenty of overlap among those groups by 1976) bought a brand-new Matador instead of a GM A-body, Torino/Montego or even a Mopar intermediate.

I always wondered how this car stacked up dimensionally, both inside and out, to GM’s 1977 downsized full-size cars. After blowing its development dollars on the Matador coupe and Pacer, AMC was stuck with the basic 1967 body. Ironically, the 1967 car was more in style by 1977 than the car AMC was selling at that time! It just needed heftier bumpers and more “Brougham” styling cues to fit right in with the times. A “Barcelona” edition of the 1967 Rebel or Ambassador might have actually worked!

I have always thought the same thing – the 1967-69 car would have been a lot easier sell by the late 70s. If AMC had ever developed a reputation for toughness and durabilty that Chrysler had in the Valiant/Dart, these might have had a chance. But with as ugly as they were, and with a durability reputation of average at best, they just didn’t do anything really well.

The 1967-69 Rebels and Ambassadors were very handsome cars. The design has worn well over the years. Unfortunately, AMC was showing early signs of financial stress when these cars were developed, so the company cut several corners. The 1967 cars had quite a few bugs that needed to be worked out of them.

The reviews were lukewarm at best – Car Life tested two 1967 Rebel hardtops, a base version and the SST, and the testers weren’t impressed with either one. Consumer Reports if I recall correctly, gave the 1967 Ambassador a “Not Acceptable” rating for reasons that escape me now.

They are also much cheaper looking on the inside. Compare the interiors of the 1965-66 Classics and Ambassadors to the 1967-69 generation. Lots of cheap plastics and ill-fitting panels on the latter. The dashboards on the 1967-69 models look especially cheesy. The 1965-66 models are much higher in quality – both in looks and feel.

Looking back, I can see why most people went with a Big Three counterpart to these cars after 1966.

Interestingly, AMC did briefly gain a reputation for durability in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but that was because it was producing the same old vehicles and drivetrains, while GM and Chrysler, in particular, were rolling out new models with front-wheel-drive layouts and hastily reworked drivetrains. Plus, AMC sales were so low that production was anything but rushed. But then the AMC/Renault Alliance debuted in the fall of 1982, and we all know how that one turned out!

AMC should have generated higher sales in 1967 because they had the only new body in the mid-sized class. Instead sales tanked. Part of the problem was that AMC moved too far upmarket in price and away from Rambler’s traditional emphasis on frugal practicality.

Nor did it help that AMC changed the nameplate from Classic — which had formidable brand identity — to Rebel and didn’t adequately promote it. Why? Because AMC emphasized the Ambassador, which it stupidly attempted to sell as a full-sized car rather than a luxury mid size, as it had in years past. If AMC had stayed the course, the Ambassador could have anticipated highly successful luxury mid-sized cars of the 1970s such as the Olds Cutlass.

As Geeber mentions, another problem was cost cutting. Ramblers had traditionally offered better fit, finish and features than Big Three small- and mid-sized cars. Not so much in 1967. Although worksmanship improved somewhat in 1968, further corner cutting was on the way until the advent of the 1972s, which received a host of improvements in sync with the introduction of the Buyer Protection Plan.

Consumers Reports’ “not acceptable” rating in 1967 revolved around a fuel leak that occurred during hard braking. This was a meaningful blow to AMC because Ramblers had tended to score pretty well with this crowd.

AMC essentially walked away from its traditional buyer base but wasn’t able to carve out a new one. How could they if competing directly against the Big Three on styling? The latter had the money to restyle its mid-sized offerings every two or three years.

What’s sad is that the mid-sized AMCs were pretty good cars once the bugs were worked out, e.g., they were roomier than their competitors yet were fairly light weight. Indeed, the basic body would have made a great Granada-style luxury compact if the exterior sheetmetal had been pruned back to its trimmer, 1963-66 dimensions.

What you cant tell from the pics above is that these have wood faced gauges, rear that again, white numbers on fake wood, which brings the broughamyness content to the max, true the interior has more shaggy carpet and pseudo wrinkled velour trying to be leather(huh?) but its all fake luxury, there arent even any armrests.

>>Should I ever succeed in creating a time machine, one of the first places I plan to go is the meetings where this design was approved.<<

This is line du jour for today. 🙂

I would have one of these now, just for the weird factor. But I'm not sure I've ever seen one that wasn't a government or other fleet car–back in the '70s, they just seemed to be part of the furniture like any other fleet car.

“This is a look that could only have come from a mixture of alcohol and a deadline.”

A well written and wonderfully entertaining article, counselor. Of course, it ain’t a real Matador sedan unless it wears US Government plates and/or a U.S. Postal Service logo. Incidentally, the “What’s a Matador” tagline came from the ad agency Wells Rich Greene, which was one of the industry’s most creative and influential shops.

Or some police sirens and lights on it. In the early 70s quite a number of law enforcement agencies got Matadors as squad cars, in particular, the Los Angeles PD…could see quite a number of these cars in cop shows of the era.

The ’74 coffin nose Ambassador comes off much better, but the extra wheelbase helps the overall look (as did the Marlin in ’67). Why AMC didn’t just keep the existing Ambassador and rename it “Matador” (much like Chrysler did when they dropped Imperial and called the same car “New Yorker Brougham) eludes me. Again, hindsight.

I believe that the Ambassador was killed after 1974, which was a horrible year for the industry as a whole. From 75 on, it was just the Matador on that body.

Although AMC would not have made it that long, a luxuriously appointed Ambassador would have been just the ticket against the downsized Cadillac in 77 and especially the Lincoln in 80, at least if there had been a way to cheaply upgrade the quality of the switchgear and the touch points.

CARMINE

Posted June 27, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Though its not like people really rejected the downsized Cadillacs, what hurt the Matador, other than being an AMC, was that the car that should have been the “hot” car in the line up, the semi personal luxury coupe, looked like a Colonade from Mars with guard rails as bumpers.

Dick Teauge was quoted ” If it would have been a Cutlass we would have sold a million of them”

No, Dick, sorry, if the Matador coupe would have looked like something more like a Cutlass, you would have at least had a chance.

The mid size car market was dominated by 2 door coupes in the 70’s. 4 doors were usually fleets or elderly drivers. Wasn’t until the 80’s that mid size sedans we know today started to take off. Full size sedans were the go to car for families in the 70’s, still.

Anyway, the 74-78 Matador sedan/wagon were the ugliest cars available. Only die hard AMC old timers bought them new. They looked very 1964 plain in the flashy 70’s. Like trying to sell fedora hats and grey flannel suits long out of style.

Looking at The Matadors…How Closely related to The Rebel and Marlin were They? I never once thought of that in my Dads Two Ambassadors. Just now realizing That From the 1958 Plymouth Suburban, Thru the 62 Rambler… and on Thru The 76 Dodge Royal Monoco… He Never once had a GM or Ford car, except for the Opel Kadett in 68.

He was no Mopar man…He did Root for AMC.

His 70 Ambassador was a four door. If It was not for Dad, I never knew anyone with an AMC.

I think this is one where Eugene Levy’s statement to Clark Grizwold applies- ‘If you think you hate it now, wait til you drive it!’

The reason it was damned in the press was the fact that the brakes were horrible and would lock up sending the car skidding sideways down the road. Combined with handling that was atrocious even by ’70s standards, a poor ride, and 11mpg fuel consumption in a ‘mid size’ car, its no wonder nobody wanted one.

This very polite road test of the era is the very epitome of ‘damning with faint praise’ – and keep in mind this is of the X coupe! The only positive the tester could find was the styling. remove that and, well who would spend their own money on one?

That said, I’d still take one- particularly a wagon, as AMC fully broughamified its wagons with cloth or velour when the big 3 only used vinyl in their wagons. On further reflection, I bet that crushed velour isn’t fun to clean after the children in the back have gone all Linda Blair from the wayward handling. I think I’ve just talked myself back to the big 3’s way of thinking- vinyl all the way.

To be fair, go back and view more reviews from Car and Track, as the vast majority of cars in the late 60’s – early ’70’s were understeering pigs and horrible handlers. I used to watch the series when they were re-broadcast on Speedvision (please come back!), I was shocked to see so many cars that would swap ends during panic stops. The smooth ride tuning and bias ply tires meant for long wear really didn’t help matters, either. We’ve come a long way, baby.

I wasn’t old enough to drive during that time, but I do remember stories from folks who were caught out in a panic stop or some other emergency maneuver and found themselves going the wrong way at the wrong time. Not something I’d want to experience.

IIRC, the Mats that I rode in usually had sway bars and such, it seemed to me they rode/handled about as well as a contemporary GM midsizer of the time. But this is a recollection of almost 35 years ago by now. Take it FWIW.

I was really bummed when the Satellites went away. Every once in awhile, you would hear that Mopar starter on the show. When the Matador replaced the Satellite, the show had jumped the shark, in my book.

roger628

Posted June 29, 2012 at 1:37 AM

In fact, it was LAPD itself who jumped the shark, since Jack Webb only used authentic cruisers for the show, with the exception of the 1970 season when Malloy and Reid should have had a 1970 Montego. Instead, for some reason they had a 1970 Satellite.
FWIW, LAPD relied on yearly LASD testing for their choice of cruiser. Apparently, the Matador beat everything else for a time.

The Matador will live forever on cable TV, thanks to the LAPD and LASD. Not only did Adam-12 use current model LAPD Matadors, but cast-offs from L.A. law enforcement agencies were driven and crashed on numerous shows for years to come. Lots of smaller SoCal cities purchased whatever LASD did, so the area was awash in them for awhile. According to a retired LAPD officer, the department reportedly did not like the styling changes in the “coffin nose” 74 Matadors because it affected handling so much, so in 1975 they went with the Plymouth Fury.

In the mid-1970s, AMC was getting a reputation for weird styling – kinda like America’s Datsun. The Gremlin launched it; the Javelin and AMX were departures, although attractive. But when the bumper-law came in, AMC omitted the modesty covers and received some accolades for it. Then came the miscalculated Matador coupe…like Teague tried to do a Monte Carlo after a twelve-pack.

With no money for new bodies, was it any surprise that AMC would substitute weird nose-jobs for updated platforms? The end was near; they knew it. As early as 1976 there were public speculations that AMC would just abandon the car market in favor of Jeeps. Gerald Myers, to Popular Mechanics, emphatically rejected that eventuality – his plan was to have a “50/50” spread of engineering resources. Half on cars, half on Jeeps.

Quite a comedown for a company which bought Jeep just six years earlier as a sidelight.

Instead, what came of it was a marketing plan, then credit lines, and finally ownership by Renault. Which wasn’t a very-much better plan; but it kept the lights on until Chairman Lee could arrange a conquest.

RE: The weird rear door/C-pillar/quarter panel treatment – That’s because AMC only redesigned the rear quarters, bumper and, on the sedans, the back doors. The trunk lid, rear glass and probably the roof stamping are carryover from ’69. While the look is very different, the actual shape of the coupe and sedan rooflines are the same as ’67-’69 underneath.

Same story on the ’74 restyle. AMC wanted a longer front end for the new federal bumpers, but wouldn’t/couldn’t pay for tooling an all new front end, so they only redesigned the hood and kept the ’71-’73 fenders. Hence the “coffin nose.”

In other words, AMC was very cheap. Often too cheap for their own good. Except for when they wasted everything on boondoggles like the Matador coupe and Pacer.

While these are some sad examples of AMC penny-pinching, Teague and the engineering staff were absolutely brilliant when it came to parts sharing and stretching the tooling budget as far as possible. The original AMX and the Gremlin are the most obvious examples – those cars were put into production for a song. The ’63 Classic had interchangeable front/rear bumpers and side window frames. The ’64 American used the same doors as the Classic. Going even further back to the ’50s, the distinctive dip in the rear roofline of Rambler wagons was purely practical: They simply tacked on extra sheet metal to the sedan’s roof.

The ’74 coupe styling has issues, but they were fixable had AMC had the cash to invest in fixing them, and at least it was trying to be something. The mistake was in not doing a redesign that worked for both the coupes and the sedans. This is actually the same mistake that Studebaker made in 1953. The “Loewy coupe” was lovely, but it had nothing in common with the ’53 sedans, which shared more in common with the ’52 cars than they did with the coupe.

What can one expect from a company that produces the whimsy of the “Desert Only” setting, rather than Max A/C (or simply recirculate)? I had a friend in high school with a used diaper brown Hornet, and we used to speculate what might happen if you used that setting if not in the desert. If the windows were down, would the countryside freeze over?

A lot of AMCs styling in 1970s has been copied in 2000s. Next time you sit near a Nissan Murano, or a Infinity or Lexus SUV you will see it is a rolling aquarium aka Pacer. Some show better than others. Gremlin’s hacked off rear has been copied by just about all automakets by now incuding new Audis, Toyots like Tercal, Honda CRV I could go on here. Every seen the 1998 ‘Pacer Center of Auto Universe’ page :http://www.arcticboy.com/media/pacer/PacUniverse2.jpg sort of eye opening.

The Matadors (someone way above thread used a photo of my site of my old 72 Matador 2dr in driveway!) of 71-73 are quite attractive. And were used for NASCAR something often forgotten when it comes to AMC. Here, ya’ll go take a tour of my extensive AMC PRESS PHOTOS section where you will find NASCAR Matador photoshttp://www.planethoustonamx.com/press_photos/amc_press_photos.htm

The 74 Ambassador (last year of long running Series name dating back to Nash) and the ‘new’ design 74 Matador both are affectionately known as ‘coffin noses’ to AMC fans, then and now. AMC had unfortunate timing with the new froggy coupes (also used for NASCAR, Penske’s Team, where they also won with likes of Bettenhausen, Bobby Allison, Dave Marsic to name a few who drove them) but the new coupes were introed as OPEC stopped selling oil aka the ‘oil crisis’ in 70s, so here you had America’s only new car for 1974 (new design, not facelift) but the coupes looked large with the huge hood, at a time when people were dumping their LTDs, Grand Villes, Delta 88s and other ‘gas guzzlers’ in favor of smaller engines. So aMC had to quickly change ads to let people know their new Matador came with a economy minded six, but damage sort of done.

Something I don’t think anyone has noted is that noted designer Oleg Cassini lent his name to certain Matador coupes. Not 4dr like article here, but the froggy eyed coupes, quite neat if you ever have chance to check one up close and you can still find them reasonably priced in good condition. Same with the 1974-78 Matador 4dr and wagons. There were 4824 Matador sedans like feature car here made in 1978, the last year of the Matador. I don’t know how many were Broughams with this two tone paint. There were 3746 78 Matador wagons made and 2006 78 Matador coupes produced in 1978. The Brougham package as shown here was $699.00. I may add that a number of Matador 74-78 4drs were AMC’s fleet sales, that is sold to army, navy, marines, air force, taxi and of course police to name a few. We had a number of Matador 4dr sedans with 258-6 at Corpus Christi Naval Air station for instance.

For whatever it is worth, ya’ll go check out Bob’s site at http://www.arcticboy.com and click on the Ambassador icon, and Matador icon, and if want, Pacer icon as he has lots of original ads there from aMC’s past.

Are they good cars? I have been proudly driving nothing but AMC cars since getting drivers license in 1976 and have owned 370 of them so far, 14 currently. No Ford, Chevy, Mopar or out of control Toyota, nothng but AMC, driven daily in Houston, Texas. No matter where I go from mundane grocery trips to restaurants there are looks, stares, thumbs ups, waves and cell phone photos. The cars are dependable and a sad commentary on buying public that AMC is no longer around. Some auto makers still around but put out droid cars that one can’s tell one from another and like a Best Buy warranty, crater at the 100,001 mile mark the pick a parts here are full of thousands of these marques. At least if you saw a coffin nose behind you…you would think COP! or spill coffee or change lanes thinking NO INSURANCE!. enjoyed the article, ya’ll give AMC a 2nd look at car shows and events, the photo here is of my home sidestreet in Houston with ‘some’ of my classic American Motors vehicles. Eddie Stakes planethoustonamx.com

Eddie, thanks for your info-packed comment. I knew that the 78 Matador sedan was a rare bird, but I couldn’t find the production figure. There seem to be a number of web resources devoted to the coupes, but not for the poor sedans. I will confess that the longer I have thought about that Matador sedan, the more I like them. But that doesn’t mean I find them attractive looking. I have a thing for 1960s Studebakers, so I understand how someone could love AMC cars. I am glad that there are folks out there who enjoy them and preserve them for the rest of us to enjoy too. They may not be what I will ever end up with (although I will admit to being tempted recently by a red Rambler American convertible on my local Craigslist) but they make for the variety that we all love.

Eddie: I don’t know if this will interest you or not. Monday’s articles on CC have a 1981 Concord that I found last week at the Auto Zone on Frazier in Conroe. The guy thinks it may run forever and was pleased that I wanted the pictures. I think it is going to run for a long time.

When the Matador Coupe first appeared in 1974 I thought it was “cool looking” and wished I could purchase one, however with a growing family I could not justify purchasing a new car for myself. I also liked the Matador Sedans and Wagons along with the 74 Ambassadors. In 1976 we purchased a 1975 Matador Station Wagon that had been an AMC Program Car and had only 8,000 miles. Moving along to 1978, Norton-Rust AMC, our local dealer in Bloomington, Illinois had a new Matador Barcelona Sedan in the two tone brown color scheme. I kept returning to the dealership to look at the car, and had numerous visits with the salesman. At the end of the 78 model year, the salesman called me at work and offered me the car at an attractive price. I wish this story had a better ending, however after discussing possible purchase with my wife, we made the joint decision that it was not in our best financial interest to make the purchase due to having four children age 11 and under, a mortgage, and private school tuition. Now being retired that old feeling still comes back on the rare occasion when I see a Barcelona or even just review old AMC Brochures or pictures. One consulation, in 1981 my father purchased a new AMC Concord DL four door sedan which I now have and enjoy. It has only 38,000 miles at this writing (4/2013) and since I am getting older, I plan to drive it on a regular basis during the good weather months. I still long for the elusive Matador Barcelona.

Here is my 73 Matador Hardtop. 401 worth 450 HP with Chrysler 727 and 3.54 gears. This car gets way more attention than my 71 Stingray roadster ever did and it is brutally fast. Only 8000 hardtops made in 73. Took me 10 years to find all the parts and 4 years to rebuild. I have yet to have anyone call this car ugly.

That extra long nose from 74 really is hideous. As others suspected, it’s probably due to increasing US crash test standards. The Wiki article on the Saab 900 says that model was based on the 99, but “with a longer front end to meet U.S. frontal crash regulations” AMC had probably already made the decision to let the senior platform run down, so adapted the 1967 platform the cheap and dirty way. Some of the surviving AMC styling guys show up at the local AMC owner’s club meet each August, so I could ask.

The foundry I worked at in 75 had two company cars: a 74 Ford LTD and a 74 Ambassador wagon. The Ambassador handled way better than the Ford, way less floaty on the road, and was my preferred ride. As for AMC brakes locking up and throwing the car sideways, the automotive press raved about how well the 78 Fairmont/Zephyr handled, but my Zephyr, bought new, would lock up and get sideways in an instant. Vile handling was the norm in the 70s.

The mind boggles at what AMC could have done, like take the money spent on the Pacer and the Matador coupe, add the ex Buick V6 that AMC inherited when it bought Jeep, and the transverse mounted automatic that Borg Warner was selling to Austin for the Landcrab, and they would have had a reasonably mature front drive system that they could have built an 82 GM A body around, in 75. But in 72-73, when the Pacer was being developed, who knew that the price of gas would double? Would the US market even accept an 82 A body in 75?

It’s unforgivable that the AMC Matador didn’t earn the respect it deserves. No car company is perfect, not even the Big Three. And the 1970s and 80s were an extremely difficult time for the entire auto industry. Still, you’d think that AMC would be given some respect for at least trying to build a good car, if not the perfect car. 🙂

Loved this insightful, well-written article. I remember watching “The Eyes Of Laura Mars” and trying to imagine a successful, Manhattan-based fashion photographer (the title character, portrayed by Faye Dunaway) being chauffeured around in a ’77 Matador wagon. Though that particular car was nice-looking, it was at that point in the movie that I was basically unable to suspend my disbelief. I have always liked the non-brougham, ’74+ Matador coupes. Still kind of want one.

My 1974 Consumer Guide listed the Matador has best buy among intermediates. The older boxy shape was praised for it’s space efficiency and the 360 V8 for it’s good combination of power and economy. If the 74 bumper restyle had been carried off better, this car could have found itself in the sweet spot. The size was right on top of what was to become the new full size and AMC was already there.

Sadly it was not to be. It is amazing how unintegrated the loose velour seat is with the rest of the interior, although if Carmine above is right, woodgrain gauge faces must be something to see.

I think that AMC should have kept the Ambassador name and nose styling after 1974 instead of the Matador. Or at least change the Matador’s schnozz to the flatter Amb front. The Matador’s jutting grille and front bumper just look wrong.

In terms of specifications, the ’71-’78 Matador was essentially a reprise of their ’67-’68 Ambassadors which sold well compared to the flop the Rebel of those years was. The styling from the B-pillar rearward was AMC’s take on the GM A-body Buick sedans, formal C-pillar frame, hips and uplifted tail. Didn’t come off well mated to the front section. Of that distended proboscis; if one is going weird……go all the way.

In college, I dated a young woman whose father gave her a 4 year-old 1973 blue over white Ambassador (with a 360). In graduate school, five years later or so, I dated a different young woman whose father bestowed her a yellow over black 1974 Matador (probably a 304 or even 258, it felt slow). Lightning didn’t strike either time, but whenever I see a ’70’s AMC sedan, I smile.

Back in 1978 the fed. Govt. fleet where I worked received two of these, the base model, 360 V-8. Word was AMC was practiaclly giving them away at this point. Not only FUGLY, but crudely finished with cheap interior materials. The 360 was a dog, even by the low standards of 1978. So-so handling, even with HD suspension these had. No one wanted to drive them, preferring the Impalas and even the LTD’s that made up the rest of the fleet.

These were quite a contrast to the prior generation Rebel, which I always liked.

The car failed for many reasons. The biggest–it was ugly. Next, it was inferior to the it’s big three competitors, further behind the Monaco/Fury and Torino/Montego/LTD-2/Cougar than those were to GM’s mid-sizers.

Also, back in the 70s, the only mid-sizers that weighed 3500-3700 lbs would have been pre-1974 (small bumper) base models, with 6-cyl engines, no auto, power steering or brakes–in other words cars that no one bought.

Through in auto, ps, pb, V8, and AC and your looking at 4000-4400 lbs.

Perhaps they should have called the Barcelona a Bavarian instead. That interior fabric reminds me of lederhosen and suspenders. I once rode with a co-worker that had a Matador coupe and that car smelled like a bong, which made me wonder if having to drive the car was making him self-medicate with a little doobage. The seats were either broken in properly or were actually comfortable, as I felt like a strawberry sitting in a bowl of warm oatmeal.

Like so many classics cars, the flaws and issues are what made it memorable.

The problem with the pre-70 Rebel is that it was clean and sharp but utterly forgettable.

Say what you will, there is no confusing anything with the Matador sedan, especially the coffin-nose 74-78 examples. Personally, I’d take interesting, ugly, or unique over bland, inoffensive, or pretty any day.

This is also why the 74 grille is by far the best. They went all out to make it stand out from the crowd, and those funky little orange space-bra front markers are very cool. Like so many other cars up to and including our time, often something bold is tried first, and then dumbed down and sanitized to get more sales later in the run.

So in conclusion, sure you could drive a 1974 Ford LTD, nice enough car, but so what. Drive a Matador sedan, and you drive something with a story, something that generates conversation, something that stands out in a crowd, something to hate or be fascinated by, and something that when set up drives as good or better than the domestic competition.

One application where the styling sort of fit, though…in black and white. The Matadors looked more the part than, say, the fuselage midsize Plymouth Satellite or the GM Colonnades. At some departments they ousted Mopars for a few years, best-known in Los Angeles (the accompanying photo isn’t a real LAPD patrol car; it’s a movie car, painstakingly duplicating the real thing for the TV series Adam-12). The Matadors, once they were equipped with Chrysler’s A727 TorqueFlite transmission, really were a good police car but AMC neglected them, and let them slide until they were no longer competitive.

But then, the square-jawed Dodge Diplomat, Plymouth Gran Fury and (for one year) Chrysler LeBaron looked more the part, anyway.

Pretty much the only Matador sedans I recall seeing back in the day were those of our city police and government fleets, (in all white, no black and whites). Spotting one with out police or government decals was like spotting a Checker Marathon without “TAXI” on the door. The coupes were pretty common, they don’t get a lot of love around here, but I liked the coupes, I wouldn’t mind having one today, I wouldn’t give a plugged nickel for a sedan.

My take on AMC is that the Big 3, especially GM and Ford, had the market sewn up on mid and full-sized cars. AMC didn’t have a chance – so they didn’t bother doing much with the poor Matador over the years and let it sink. Do I hate the look? Today I don’t for nostalgic reasons, but as a consumer back then I would have had so many nicer, modern choices from GM and Ford that I probably wouldn’t have even given AMC a look.

My dad bought what was, for all intents and purposes, the deluxe version of the same car (an Ambassador) in 1972. He owned it for about a year (even going so far as to install a cruise control on it that he ordered from the AMC dealer). He never really liked it, overall.

In 1973, he traded it for a 1973 Mercury Monterey that he kept for almost 20 years.

Part of the problem with the Matador was that they probably had to do something a little different. Even something like the Javelin really didn’t do anything that the Mustang or Camaro had done (though the AMX, as a two seater, was really onto something, I think). Like you mention in the article about how Paul had brought up the theory that AMC mirrored Studebaker’s long and drawn out death in terms of risk taking with their styling, I think that’s pretty true and on the money as an assertion.

The problem with having styling that’s too much like everyone else, is that you never achieve any real uniqueness or originality as a brand, and you never define anything.
But if you swing too far the other way, as we’ve seen with risks in the auto industry, terms like “pioneer” and “ahead of its time” are often fairly closely associated with failures. Some of the safest vehicles in the early part of the 20th Century also sold the worst, and other well intentioned innovative builders (Tucker, etc) lost their backside. AMC strikes me as a company that had enough success to be able to continue on, yet not enough to really be able to be able to offer enough quality and/ or brand name prestige to really vault themselves up the ladder.

It’s a catch 22 situation, because cars that are cheap and plentiful (see: K Cars, Pinto, Vega, Citation) sell extremely well due to their price point, but the unfortunate reality is that the quality suffers, and then you’re left with the reputation of those cars. The Big Three have always been able to balance some affordable cars that sell in enough numbers in which to help finance some of their other cars. I’m not really sure that AMC had any one particular car that was their “bread and butter” in terms of sales (though the Rambler fit that bill at one point and became massively uncool basic transportation after a while). Maybe Jeep had carried them, I don’t know.

Don’t know if anyone’s mentioned it, but AMC’s sporty wheel set looks an awful lot like Dodge/ Chrysler ones, with the tapered middle hub part. If you’re going to do something different, be different…..at least the Pacer and Gremlin really were out there, in terms of styling.

If only they had put 4 square headlights on the front of that coffin nose. If only they had flattened the dip in the rear door. If only they had squared up the C-pillar a bit more. If only, if only. I like these cars but there was just enough not quite “right” about them that turned buyers off by 1978 – I guess that’s why only about 10k were peddled that year and the model dumped.

The ’67-’69 was quite attractive – kind of a less distinctive ’64-’66 Chevelle. Why did they muck with it? As it was it could have lasted though the early ’80s. The money spent on the coupe should have been for a formal-roofed Brougham version, kind of like the “upscale Plymouth” that turned into the Chrysler Cordoba. Or the ’76 Cutlass Supreme coupe. Or the ’77 T-Bird. Or the ’79 Riviera. Anything but what it became.

About the origin of the ’74 Matador sedan: Pat Foster’s book American Motors Corporation: the Rise and Fall of America’s Last Independent Automaker shows a couple of pictures from 1970 of full size mockups of a proposed Ambassador replacement for the early 70s. A 2 door version and 4 door version of the same car (pages 133-134). In my opinion they were very nicely done, I would be happy to drive either of them today.

Foster suggests that this design shows a resemblance to the ’74 Matador sedan. I agree. There is a protruded grill design that I think integrates nicely with the overall flow of the car.

My guess is that AMC had some great ideas about where they would like to go with their styling, but with limited budget and with the bumper requirements that began in ’73, they ended up trying to integrate some of their newer design features as modifications of the existing cars. The features just did not work as well doing it that way, especially with the bumper requirements.

I had exactly such a brown on beige Matador Barcelona sedan somewhere around the 1982’s and loved it. Unfortunatly the engine didn’t like the LPG we drive a lot on in Europe and died on and the car ended up in a junkyard. Wish i had kept and stored it Would be nice to restore it .